Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 62460 of 2017 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rafiuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Sri Anil Kumar Aditya has filed an impleadment application for impleading Puran Singh son of Mewa Ram stating therein that he was party to the revision decided vide order impugned and is also impleaded in the restoration application pending before the revisional court.
In view of the above noted fact, the impleadment application is allowed.
Necessary incorporation be made in the array of parties.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for newly impleaded respondent and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the revisional court whereby the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 308 under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, was rejected.
The petitioner is chak holder no. 134 which comprises of plot nos. 468/4 and 468/3.
It appears that during the course of consolidation operations, a 'chak road' has been carved out adjacent to plot no. 468/4 which runs towards North-South direction at the western side of plot no. 465/2 and 468/3. The petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with the assertion that his 'Well' situated in plot no. 468/4 falls in the middle of the 'chak road' proposed at the site in question.
The said objections were rejected vide order dated 3.8.2005 which was challenged in revision decided on 27.11.2017. A categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the revisional court that the 'Well' belonging to the petitioner is adjacent to the 'chak road' but it is 2½ metres away and does not lie in the middle of the 'chak road'. It was further recorded that the village has been denotified on 31.12.2005 under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order passed by the revisional court dated 27.11.2017 is based on the spot inspection report submitted by the Consolidator. Further a finding has been recorded by the revisional court that in case the 'chak road' proposed at the site in question is shifted, other chak holders would face inconvenience.
This finding of fact returned by the revisional court has been challenged in the present writ petition with the assertion that the report submitted by the Consolidator was a false report.
As a result of it, vide order dated 29.1.2018, this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to file an affidavit of the Consolidator verifying the report dated 21.11.2017. Further a direction was given to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to carry out fresh spot inspection and submit a report.
The spot inspection report submitted in the supplementary counter affidavit further substantiates the report submitted by the Consolidator which was basis of the order impugned passed by the revisional court.
A perusal of page '5' Annexure-1 to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 shows that the 'Well' situated in plot no. 468/4 (recorded in the name of the petitioner) is 2½ metres away from the 'chak road' which is proposed at the Western side of the plot nos. 468/4 and 465/5. The 'chak road' further connects to a road which runs towards Northern side of plot no. 468/3 in East- West direction. The spot inspection report dated 8.2.2018 prepared under the directions of this Court is signed by the petitioner. Though the correctness of the said report has been challenged in the short rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner but no material has been brought on record to dispute the same.
The averment made in paragraph '4' of the short rejoinder affidavit are vague and not acceptable.
In view of the categorical submission of the Consolidation authorities in the short counter affidavit filed before this Court as also the report of the Consolidator, the findings of fact returned by the revisional court cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is more than apparent that the petitioner is obstructing the construction of 'chak road' which has been proposed looking to inconvenience being caused to other chak holders. The competent authorities are directed to comply with the consolidation scheme and finalise the proceeding for carving of the 'chak road'.
Lastly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the revisional court was required to be set aside inasmuch as the said order has been passed without summoning the trial court record is not acceptable for the reasons noted above. Reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in Raj Nath vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and 5 others reported in 2015 (11) ADJ 688 is of no benefit to the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.3.2018/Brijesh